I was totally blown away by this production. Despite the fact that the material has been filmed before, I felt like I was watching something totally new and original. This is due in no small part to the fact that director Stephen Frears and crew had the guts to do this as a live production AND film it in black and white. It made me feel like I was watching an old news broadcast. It also had a bit of a glossy look to it, sort of like the black and white films of the '30s and '40s. The performances are uniformly excellent, especially Richard Dreyfuss, Noah Wyle and Hank Azaria. There is no musical score, so you are either hearing dialogue and a few SFX or dead silence, which only adds to the eerie effect. The scary thing is that a scenario like this one could happen. If this is repeated or comes out on video, RUN to see it. You won't see another like it.
95 Reviews
What's the problem?
Kane III24 December 2000
I just watched this on DVD. I'd already read some of the lukewarm comments by some here but bought it anyway - not having had the chance to see it on TV.
I simply can't fault it. It was well done in every department, it was just as tense as the original and just as well acted. Far from over the top scenery chewing, Dreyfuss's performance was on the money. What, he wasn't "statesman" enough? How many *real* presidents are?
Maybe it was the fact that most of the reviewers had to suffer the standard multitude of commercial breaks wrecking the tension, but viewed in one sitting on DVD, this thing packed a wallop.
And I'm not easily pleased.....
I simply can't fault it. It was well done in every department, it was just as tense as the original and just as well acted. Far from over the top scenery chewing, Dreyfuss's performance was on the money. What, he wasn't "statesman" enough? How many *real* presidents are?
Maybe it was the fact that most of the reviewers had to suffer the standard multitude of commercial breaks wrecking the tension, but viewed in one sitting on DVD, this thing packed a wallop.
And I'm not easily pleased.....
Felt like the "old days"
TC-410 April 2000
I really looked forward to this live TV special and I was not disappointed. I also liked the black and white presentation. I remember quite well the live Playhouse 90s and Studio Ones of the fifties. When tape and film came along a lot of the edge was taken out. I hope that this starts a new trend. I would like to see one once a month. I would like to see how many new stars that rely on film and retakes to be good enough to be in a live show.
Exceptional Drama, Great TV
BStu9 April 2000
I only heard about this program a day before it aired, and I am very glad I did. The acting was absolutely amazing all around. There was not a single performer who didn't rise to the occasion in this picture. It is all the more amazing since it was performed live on national television. Particularly strong were Richard Dreyfuss, Harvey Keitel, and Hank Azaria, but it is difficult to break away any actors from the strong ensemble.
The whole effect of the production very well captures the sense of a Cold War drama. From the set design, costumes, performances, direction, and the choice to air in black and white, the atmosphere is as much a player in "Fail Safe" as the actors. One really gets the feeling that they are watching a 1950's era live broadcast.
I must say, that I knew nothing of the original story or film, and I really feel I benefited from that. The story is amazingly suspenseful. I did not know the ending going in, and I won't ruin it for you either. Just trust me that it is unquestionably the best way to view this picture. I was on the edge of my seat throughout the film and was honestly moved by the ending. The script is excellent, and the story even better. While it is clearly a cautionary tale of nuclear war, it never tries to beat its purpose into the viewer. It lets the story tell the story, which is always the best.
If you missed the live broadcast, be on the look-out for a re-broadcast. This is a real accomplishment from CBS, and its a shame that it was not more widely promoted.
The whole effect of the production very well captures the sense of a Cold War drama. From the set design, costumes, performances, direction, and the choice to air in black and white, the atmosphere is as much a player in "Fail Safe" as the actors. One really gets the feeling that they are watching a 1950's era live broadcast.
I must say, that I knew nothing of the original story or film, and I really feel I benefited from that. The story is amazingly suspenseful. I did not know the ending going in, and I won't ruin it for you either. Just trust me that it is unquestionably the best way to view this picture. I was on the edge of my seat throughout the film and was honestly moved by the ending. The script is excellent, and the story even better. While it is clearly a cautionary tale of nuclear war, it never tries to beat its purpose into the viewer. It lets the story tell the story, which is always the best.
If you missed the live broadcast, be on the look-out for a re-broadcast. This is a real accomplishment from CBS, and its a shame that it was not more widely promoted.
Worthy of a re-broadcast, or a 2nd look if you taped it
iam-19 May 2000
This was something I was fascinated to see since I had first heard about it: a live broadcast in real time of an already produced story (twice, if you count _Dr. Strangelove..._) in Black & White, on National TV, using old-style equipment & lighting restrictions, with an absolute stellar cast. Woah! And it works. I was, in a way, looking for mistakes or wrong steps from the actors and crew who are used to being able to go back & do it a second time, but there were so few that it makes no point in listing them. Generally everyone gives what is needed to the effort, and the dedication of the cast to the text is obvious to even the untrained observer in the audience. The story is paramount, and the only thing that suffers in this adaptation is the lack of tension and complexity of some of the characters' sub-plots -- but I may be remembering the original novel which includes all the back-stories for everyone, and the original movie has more tension because that was done in the time of the Cold War Insanity so it is infused with the immediacy of disaster being constantly present, and that's not something you can put into two hours of TV done in the year 2000. Darn fine camera work, direction, acting, and lighting. All of it gives the feel of a Playhouse 90, or Hallmark Hall of Fame, or any of the other 'great TV Drama' shows of the late 50's and early 60's. The only thing that could make it more evocative would be to put that weird hi-contrast halo around the image, but that would get in the way of the great camera work, and wouldn't fit with the wide-screen letterbox of the frame. Even if it hadn't have been done live, it would have been an amazing piece of work, but as it is, it's even more stunning to realize that all of those fine actors were truly 'in the moment' at the same time, and everyone made the same movie for the same two intense hours. This really needs to be re-broadcast, and win Emmies, and be hailed as a return to Acting and Quality on television. MOW's *can* be quality, if you put this kind of effort into them. Watch this to see how.
A nailbiter.
bat-512 July 2000
As you view Fail Safe, you can feel the tension mounting as a nuclear nightmare unfolds in front of you. The story deals with a squadron of bombers who receive a go code as a result of a mechanical error. The rest of the movie is filled with anticipation and tension as the president tries to convince the Russian premier that the bombers are there because of a mistake, and the only way to preserve Moscow is to destroy the bombers. To talk about this movie to those who haven't seen it would ruin the story. What I can say is that once you start watching, you will not be able to turn away. The acting from all the performers keeps you watching as they propel the action forward. The black and white format gives it a feel of reality, and the omission of music adds to the effect . You know it's fiction but something in the back of your mind says that this could happen, and thus you're compelled to watch. For those who didn't see this in April, watch for a re-airing. Better yet, wait till it hits the home video circuit. That way, you'll be able to watch this captivating, tension filled, nailbiter with no interruptions
Not a match for the original film
ozthegreatat4233016 April 2007
With the end of the arms race between the United States and Russia this film does not have the urgency of the earlier production. While the cast is composed of some very talented actors, they are simply not a match for the original cast. This goes to prove my point that some films should not be remade. Richard Dreyfus just doesn't come across as the president. And most of the other cast members were miscast as well. The story was close enough to be the original, and the look of shooting in black and white was a good choice. It is only in that medium that the stark horror of what has happened could be told. While this was certainly not a bad film or an awful film it simply misses that something that the 1964 feature had. I have rated it 7 out of 10.
Golden Era of Television Returning?
vmcdavidson15 April 2000
Haunting in stark black-and-white, "Fail Safe" may not match blow-for-blow the devastating impact the 1964 version made on me, but it came very close.
My respect for George Clooney continues to grow. The former "E.R." hunk pushed for this project to be performed live, and he is proving to be a trailblazer in contemporary television. His family's deep roots in entertainment have given him the insight and passion to champion television of yesteryear. Several seasons back, it was Clooney's lobbying efforts that brought a live performance of "E.R." to the air waves.
This production of "Fail-Safe" was truly exquisite. What a thrill it would be for classic TV/film buffs to have similar live productions air -- scripts used on the 1950s "Playhouse 90" or those penned by Rod Serling, such as "Patterns," would be a good beginning. With the amount of insipid viewing options available today, shaking a little dust off other older quality shows would expose a new generation to the zenith of 1950s and 1960s television. "Fail Safe" was nearly perfect; the Cold War storyline still holds up as riveting drama in the year 2000. And it was all the more effective performed live and in the oft-ignored B/W.
The one disappointing flaw was Richard Dreyfuss in the role of the president. As fine an actor as Dreyfuss is, he was sadly miscast. He lacked the strength and leadership expected of a major world leader. In the original production, Henry Fonda was far more convincing and commanding. Better choices would have been Tommy Lee Jones or Billy Bob Thornton or Edward James Olmos. As the production progressed, I found myself visibly wincing at Dreyfuss's wimpy performance, particularly at the film's final emotional crescendo. He seemed too casual, more whiney, than someone trying to avert worldwide nuclear disaster would be. He came across often as annoyed, rather than alarmed.
However, the other supporting cast members -- George Clooney, Brian Dennehy, Harvey Keitel, Hank Azaria, Noah Wyle, James Cromwell, and Sam Elliott -- were superb in their roles. Wyle was astonishingly effective as the youthful translator -- his performance matched in strength that of a youthful Larry Hagman in the original film.
If you missed seeing "Fail Safe" (2000), buy or rent a video tape of it -- while it won't hold the same magic as seeing it live, seeing it at all is an imperative for those who savor fine television, or just want good, gripping story-telling.
My respect for George Clooney continues to grow. The former "E.R." hunk pushed for this project to be performed live, and he is proving to be a trailblazer in contemporary television. His family's deep roots in entertainment have given him the insight and passion to champion television of yesteryear. Several seasons back, it was Clooney's lobbying efforts that brought a live performance of "E.R." to the air waves.
This production of "Fail-Safe" was truly exquisite. What a thrill it would be for classic TV/film buffs to have similar live productions air -- scripts used on the 1950s "Playhouse 90" or those penned by Rod Serling, such as "Patterns," would be a good beginning. With the amount of insipid viewing options available today, shaking a little dust off other older quality shows would expose a new generation to the zenith of 1950s and 1960s television. "Fail Safe" was nearly perfect; the Cold War storyline still holds up as riveting drama in the year 2000. And it was all the more effective performed live and in the oft-ignored B/W.
The one disappointing flaw was Richard Dreyfuss in the role of the president. As fine an actor as Dreyfuss is, he was sadly miscast. He lacked the strength and leadership expected of a major world leader. In the original production, Henry Fonda was far more convincing and commanding. Better choices would have been Tommy Lee Jones or Billy Bob Thornton or Edward James Olmos. As the production progressed, I found myself visibly wincing at Dreyfuss's wimpy performance, particularly at the film's final emotional crescendo. He seemed too casual, more whiney, than someone trying to avert worldwide nuclear disaster would be. He came across often as annoyed, rather than alarmed.
However, the other supporting cast members -- George Clooney, Brian Dennehy, Harvey Keitel, Hank Azaria, Noah Wyle, James Cromwell, and Sam Elliott -- were superb in their roles. Wyle was astonishingly effective as the youthful translator -- his performance matched in strength that of a youthful Larry Hagman in the original film.
If you missed seeing "Fail Safe" (2000), buy or rent a video tape of it -- while it won't hold the same magic as seeing it live, seeing it at all is an imperative for those who savor fine television, or just want good, gripping story-telling.
a good remake
seansmithyorkuk7 August 2001
one of the best TV films I have seen in recent years! However, I must say that I thought the original was a very good film indeed, so I might of been biased. The thing that I liked about the latest remake was that the producers decided that the TV broadcast was going to be just like the original and not brought up to date. This gave the film a claustrophobic feeling to it and made it more real. So many films today are just explosions and S.F.X. that the real stories are left behind. A well made movie, and a joy to see Richard Dreyfuss back to his top form.
We'll do it live! WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
Rodrigo_Amaro17 September 2010
Everything can happen on live television from TV anchors losing their temper over a subject or a mistake performed by someone in the crew; funny things happening behind cameras; and the most common a tragic event filmed just in the moment shocking many of us. What would you think of a film broadcast Live on TV, almost like a play where actors perform in the moment with the possibility of making mistakes, forget their lines and all that? "Fail Safe" remake of the 1964 classic starring Henry Fonda and Walter Matthau was the example I'm mentioning and it was filmed live in 2000 starring a great ensemble cast featuring names like Richard Dreyfuss, George Clooney, Harvey Keitel, Brian Dennehy, James Cromwell, Don Cheadle, Sam Elliott, John Diehl and Noah Wyle.
It might be an awkward experience now that is available on DVD, it's gonna look like there's nothing exceptional except for being a good movie (better than the original I must say) because you won't notice that it was something performed live. Those who watched while it was happening in front of their faces must have loved the idea. One of the funny and troubled aspects of filming live is the use of actors in many different sets at a time e.g. Harvey Keitel had to run from one set to another in order to have his performance captured in time. The concept behind the scenes must have been very difficult, with many rehearsals along with a complex text that didn't make it easy on the actors, not to mention the whole crew behind this project and their almost impossible tasks. But in the end it all works great!
Beautifully filmed in a HD camera in black and white by the wonderful cinematographer John A. Alonzo and directed by the great creator of "Dangerous Liasons" Stephen Frears, "Fail Safe" is a story set during the Cold War with the nuclear hysteria among Americans and Soviets (not based on a true story though). The biggest event here happens when a American Military plane invades the Soviet Union accidentally after receiving orders of attacking the communists but this order was a fail delivered by the new computer system on board of the plane. And worst than this is the fact that the military on the plane can't answer to the American President (Richard Dreyfuss) and or their own superiors simply because their voices can be faked, they think that this could be a false warning. So in this chaos the military crew believes in the lie and doesn't trust the truth.
If the plot sound familiar it is. It is "Doctor Strangelove" but without the funny jokes. In case you don't know this but "Fail Safe" (the one directed by Sidney Lumet) and Kubrick's film were released in the same year and by the same distributor which caused a clash between these two films and the rest is history, Kubrick film was acclaimed and Lumet's dramatic story was something laughable at the time. So don't expect humor and too much cleverness in this film, it is a more serious approach of the mass hysteria caused by possible attacks with atomic bombs during the bitter days of Cold War.
I really wish that the idea of TV movies being broadcast live become something more recurring. After all this experience was great, every actors were wonderful with no exceptions (Dreyfuss and Dennehy were outstanding) and it was very well made. 10/10
It might be an awkward experience now that is available on DVD, it's gonna look like there's nothing exceptional except for being a good movie (better than the original I must say) because you won't notice that it was something performed live. Those who watched while it was happening in front of their faces must have loved the idea. One of the funny and troubled aspects of filming live is the use of actors in many different sets at a time e.g. Harvey Keitel had to run from one set to another in order to have his performance captured in time. The concept behind the scenes must have been very difficult, with many rehearsals along with a complex text that didn't make it easy on the actors, not to mention the whole crew behind this project and their almost impossible tasks. But in the end it all works great!
Beautifully filmed in a HD camera in black and white by the wonderful cinematographer John A. Alonzo and directed by the great creator of "Dangerous Liasons" Stephen Frears, "Fail Safe" is a story set during the Cold War with the nuclear hysteria among Americans and Soviets (not based on a true story though). The biggest event here happens when a American Military plane invades the Soviet Union accidentally after receiving orders of attacking the communists but this order was a fail delivered by the new computer system on board of the plane. And worst than this is the fact that the military on the plane can't answer to the American President (Richard Dreyfuss) and or their own superiors simply because their voices can be faked, they think that this could be a false warning. So in this chaos the military crew believes in the lie and doesn't trust the truth.
If the plot sound familiar it is. It is "Doctor Strangelove" but without the funny jokes. In case you don't know this but "Fail Safe" (the one directed by Sidney Lumet) and Kubrick's film were released in the same year and by the same distributor which caused a clash between these two films and the rest is history, Kubrick film was acclaimed and Lumet's dramatic story was something laughable at the time. So don't expect humor and too much cleverness in this film, it is a more serious approach of the mass hysteria caused by possible attacks with atomic bombs during the bitter days of Cold War.
I really wish that the idea of TV movies being broadcast live become something more recurring. After all this experience was great, every actors were wonderful with no exceptions (Dreyfuss and Dennehy were outstanding) and it was very well made. 10/10
Live action is NOT a thing of the past anymore.
phoenix110716 April 2000
I never thought I'd get into a live action drama like this, but I thought it was INCREDIBLE. The actors were superb and the storyline was gorgeously done. I was surprised that they were making live episodes of television shows, I didn't think anyone would be able to pull off a live 2-hour movie, but they did, and if it isn't nominated for several emmys, it will be a major crime.
Kudos to the whole cast and crew for the most amazing movie in a VERY long time.
Kudos to the whole cast and crew for the most amazing movie in a VERY long time.
Great LIVE TV. WOW!!!!
Pat19739 April 2000
All I can say is was live and ready to go. From start to finish it was suspenceful and very edgy and entertaining. There were no mistakes in this great tv event. The acting was flawless and exciting. The drama of this heart pounding story was about fighter pilots bombing Russia. It was a war story true and through. I highly recommend this great tv movie. All I can say is it's so honest and very scary to even think about this even happening. Just watch and see this great acted film. I can't wait till it's on DVD. For now it was on CBS channel 2 on April 9th. It's been 39 years since a live tv event has happened. It was great. All I can say is just watch! Staring George Clooney, Don Cheadle, Harvey Keitel, Richard Dreyfuss, Noah Wyle, Sam Elliott, Hank Azaria, Brian Dennehy, James Cromwell and John Diehl, and directed by Stephen Frears.
Another Remake
JayPatton8814 November 2019
Numbing Drama-Thriller
wig216019 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
--Contains spoilers-- Excellent mind numbing drama-thriller, a must see film for everyone. Superb acting, from a fabulous cast. Fail Safe tugs at your very core and evokes emotions from love to the vary basic instincts of survival and extreme sacrifice in a climax that will not disappoint. There are many many emotional moments in this film ,but near the end ,when the Airforce pilots son is pleading to his own father not to proceed with his mission, a mission that has been en-grained in his soul to complete no matter what the cost is perhaps the most heart wrenching moment I have experienced in film. I watched this with a heavy heart and was so engrossed that I just sat there at the end of the movie numb from its effects, now thats a great movie.
quality TV, for a change
Sam_Gray26 April 2000
It's taken me a while to get around to commenting on this, but I have to say, this is the best thing to have hit TV in a long time. I can't remember the last time I thought that any feature-length, made for TV product was actually good. Knowing that this was done live only impresses me more.
And I've got a say, I've never been a big fan of George Clooney. I've never much watched ER, and From Dusk Till Dawn and Batman & Robin both left a bad taste in my mouth. But, knowing the prominent role Clooney played in getting this on TV, I'd actually be interested to see what he does next. This is that good.
If Fail Safe ever comes on TV again, I'll surely record it. I'd advise you to do the same. 10/10
And I've got a say, I've never been a big fan of George Clooney. I've never much watched ER, and From Dusk Till Dawn and Batman & Robin both left a bad taste in my mouth. But, knowing the prominent role Clooney played in getting this on TV, I'd actually be interested to see what he does next. This is that good.
If Fail Safe ever comes on TV again, I'll surely record it. I'd advise you to do the same. 10/10
Less Is More
sora-212 April 2000
What I liked best about the live version of Fail Safe was that the restrictions of live TV forced the filmmakers to concentrate on those two old-fashioned values: acting and writing. Without the opportunity to edit or use fancy visuals, director Stephen Frears was forced to keep his camerawork and pacing crisp, simple, and efficient. As a result, the actors were really allowed an opportunity to shine. Every line of dialogue had to be well-delivered, and every gesture and facial expression had to be meaningful. The absence of music, black and white photography, and slow pacing allowed time to steadily absorb what was going on and churn it about in my mind; and I loved every minute of it.
Admittedly, the story of Fail Safe seems a bit dated in the post Cold War period, and the originally film itself paled in comparison to the similar Dr. Strangelove. But as an experiment in the art of storytelling, it was a triumph. The best qualities of watching a live play married with the television's ability to reach mass audiences.
I'm hoping that this does signal a resurgence in live TV, because it opens up real possibilities for what the medium could be used for. For one, it forces both directors and actors to all be just a little smarter and more alert - no opportunity to fix mistakes. It makes them more self-consciously aware that the folks at home better be entertained or at least interested in what goes on onscreen.
I'm hoping that next CBS or some other network experiments with some original live fare. After all, back in the 50's, live TV produced some great scripts, some of which were re-made into movies (Marty, Requiem for a Heavyweight) and made the careers of people like writer/producer Rod Serling and actors like Paul Newman.
Admittedly, the story of Fail Safe seems a bit dated in the post Cold War period, and the originally film itself paled in comparison to the similar Dr. Strangelove. But as an experiment in the art of storytelling, it was a triumph. The best qualities of watching a live play married with the television's ability to reach mass audiences.
I'm hoping that this does signal a resurgence in live TV, because it opens up real possibilities for what the medium could be used for. For one, it forces both directors and actors to all be just a little smarter and more alert - no opportunity to fix mistakes. It makes them more self-consciously aware that the folks at home better be entertained or at least interested in what goes on onscreen.
I'm hoping that next CBS or some other network experiments with some original live fare. After all, back in the 50's, live TV produced some great scripts, some of which were re-made into movies (Marty, Requiem for a Heavyweight) and made the careers of people like writer/producer Rod Serling and actors like Paul Newman.
What would have happened in the following presidential election?
safenoe22 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Three years before this live rendition of Fail Safe, George Clooney led the ER cast (the Michael Crichton one, not the 1980s comedy one) in a live broadcast of Ambush, the fourth season opener.
This is a compelling drama and one almost blooper came to mind. It was when the maid almost kind of fell down the stairs carrying the washing basket. That would have been an interesting blooper for sure. The ending was very tragic, and I wonder why New York was fingered to be the sacrificial city. Why not another city? You can imagine the President didn't even bother campaigning in New York at the following presidential election, ceding it to his opponent, and losing a significant chunk of the Electoral College vote.
This is a compelling drama and one almost blooper came to mind. It was when the maid almost kind of fell down the stairs carrying the washing basket. That would have been an interesting blooper for sure. The ending was very tragic, and I wonder why New York was fingered to be the sacrificial city. Why not another city? You can imagine the President didn't even bother campaigning in New York at the following presidential election, ceding it to his opponent, and losing a significant chunk of the Electoral College vote.
The very best thing George Clooney did or will ever do.
vfrickey28 August 2013
I want to freely state here that George Clooney is capable of brilliance, and the live television production of "Fail Safe" is a prime example of this. Whether it needed to be produced in black and white... is an artistic judgment that a lot of people agreed with. I was "meh" about it - this is, after all, the 21st century, and the only reason that Fail-Safe was done in black and white originally was economics. Now color's as cheap as black and white, and nothing in the original Burdick and Wheeler novel "Fail-Safe" demanded black and white.
One suspects Clooney is nostalgic for the 1960s, when so many moral questions seemed easier to plumb to us baby-boomers. But the black and white presentation's a relatively minor issue.
One thing I missed from the first movie presentation and the novel was a stronger Prof. Grotescheele (the Herman Kahn-like character in the movie played by Hank Azaria, who cut a figure in Georgetown house parties by brandishing his knowledge and seeming insouciance about thermonuclear war). The character came across as oddly subdued in the Clooney adaptation, perhaps because his egotism was shown (in the novel) in places which may have been very difficult to stage for a live production (in one case, the inside of a parked car). That's ONE drawback to live productions - you're limited in staging.
But these are minor cavils. The fact is, George Clooney shot for a very hard target - reviving live television drama - and hit it outstandingly. The atmosphere of tension and violently conflicting loyalties comes across as sharp or sharper as in the original movie.
I recommend you view this film, and the original film, and read the novel "Fail Safe," for the problem it explores, the very unsteady nature of nuclear weapon command and control, is going to be even more important to us as the membership of the Nuclear Weapon Club passes ten and moves toward twenty nations. Eventually, how well Bangladesh can control its nuclear arsenal when North Korea sells them one will be a question that affects all of us personally.
And I fervently agree with George Clooney's remarks in the end credits of his adaptation of "Fail-Safe" that the growing membership of the nuclear club is an ominous development. I disagree that arms control is imperative; we've had arms control and a Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty for almost fifty years, and in that time India, Pakistan, South Africa and North Korea joined the Nuclear Club,often with help from fully signed-up (on paper) opponents of nuclear proliferation. There are absolutely no simple solutions to this problem.
One suspects Clooney is nostalgic for the 1960s, when so many moral questions seemed easier to plumb to us baby-boomers. But the black and white presentation's a relatively minor issue.
One thing I missed from the first movie presentation and the novel was a stronger Prof. Grotescheele (the Herman Kahn-like character in the movie played by Hank Azaria, who cut a figure in Georgetown house parties by brandishing his knowledge and seeming insouciance about thermonuclear war). The character came across as oddly subdued in the Clooney adaptation, perhaps because his egotism was shown (in the novel) in places which may have been very difficult to stage for a live production (in one case, the inside of a parked car). That's ONE drawback to live productions - you're limited in staging.
But these are minor cavils. The fact is, George Clooney shot for a very hard target - reviving live television drama - and hit it outstandingly. The atmosphere of tension and violently conflicting loyalties comes across as sharp or sharper as in the original movie.
I recommend you view this film, and the original film, and read the novel "Fail Safe," for the problem it explores, the very unsteady nature of nuclear weapon command and control, is going to be even more important to us as the membership of the Nuclear Weapon Club passes ten and moves toward twenty nations. Eventually, how well Bangladesh can control its nuclear arsenal when North Korea sells them one will be a question that affects all of us personally.
And I fervently agree with George Clooney's remarks in the end credits of his adaptation of "Fail-Safe" that the growing membership of the nuclear club is an ominous development. I disagree that arms control is imperative; we've had arms control and a Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty for almost fifty years, and in that time India, Pakistan, South Africa and North Korea joined the Nuclear Club,often with help from fully signed-up (on paper) opponents of nuclear proliferation. There are absolutely no simple solutions to this problem.
Well made, interesting and gripping, but...
buiger7 August 2011
Very, very good! Also interesting id the idea to film it live, so it is basically a theatrical piece... A good screenplay, great acting and a gripping premise!
The only reason it doesn't get a higher grade is because it is basically a copy of older films, films which have been done better in the past by both Sidney Lumet (also called 'Fail Safe') and Stanley Kubrick ('Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb')...
All in all, this movie was fun to watch and maybe this 'rerun' is a great opportunity for the younger generation that hasn't seen the original movies to become familiar with the subject.
The only reason it doesn't get a higher grade is because it is basically a copy of older films, films which have been done better in the past by both Sidney Lumet (also called 'Fail Safe') and Stanley Kubrick ('Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb')...
All in all, this movie was fun to watch and maybe this 'rerun' is a great opportunity for the younger generation that hasn't seen the original movies to become familiar with the subject.
Edge of the Seat!
bfindley9 April 2000
Excellent live TV (1st time in 39 years) re-make of the old 1964 Cold War Era Standard (Walter Matthau). A computer error (and yes, computers are made by men, who are all too fallible and mortal) sends a 40 megaton payload towards Moscow. The President eventually convinces the Premier that it is all inadvertent. In exchange, the City of New York will be sacrificed if the point of no return is passed. Does the Cold War continue , or does it end with no victors whatsoever? Are the 2 cultural hubs of each hemisphere spared? or does the unimaginable transpire.
Extremely well performed drama about the unthinkable
deadbull-951715 January 2023
Warning: Spoilers
This is not the first version of this great drama, and a topic that has been covered begore in different well known films, the most famous probably Kubrick's great Dr. Strangelove. But this time around, introduced by Walter Cronkite and with a wonderful cast of fine actors, this movies plays beautifully. It's black and white, as are the forced resolutions of an impossible dramatic impasse, and has the feel of an old Twilight Zone, but with updated editing. It's about technology going so out of control that the humans behind it are powerless, certainly a topic revisited in Terminator, and so many other films, one way or another. This one does not rely to much on special effects, and it so it leans more heavily on the way human beings react under gigantic stress. We pretty well know the outcome, even if we haven't seen it before, but it feels new enough, because the issue is still going on today, specifically the nuclear management, where 'leaders; still try to form logical outcomes to what is patently insane. Here the insanity is recognized, and the only logic that can be applied is an equally terrible solution. I enjoyed this version very much. I think it was smart to give it a kind of old-school production, and the topic is anything but old, I don't think it has ever been more current. This is a very sad and possibly thought provoking film. We are living in a time where catastrophe in some ways has already started, and the worst is yet to come, and that is no movie.
Well Done production
yenlo12 April 2000
This was done live so it gets all the credit it deserves. Unlike a motion picture in which several takes for one scene may be done and then the best one put into the final edit each actor/actress has one shot and that's it. Everyone rose to the occasion. The choice of a black and white presentation gave the viewer a bit of yesteryear TV when many programs were done live. Additionally the original 1964 film was in B&W so it also gave the viewer the same atmosphere. Comparing this production of FailSafe to the 64 film shouldn't be considered.
BONZER (and depressing)
BlueEyes-612 April 2000
Warning: Spoilers
I was one of the lucky East Coasters to watch this live - I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I was EXHAUSTED at the end. Even though I knew how it would end, the journey to that point was stressful. (I felt the same about "Arlington Road".)
Some of the other commentators mentioned how dated the subject matter was - I strongly disagree, especially given the "laundry list" of countries at the end *known* to have nuclear capability, and volatile enough to chuck it all.
As to the performances... I think Richard Dreyfuss was too snippy and not commanding enough as President (I haven't seen the original "Fail Safe" to compare his performance with Fonda's), but all the other actors did a fine job.
POSSIBLE SPOILER. The only question I have is: As the only person who could prevent the bomb from being dropped on Moscow, why did Col. Grady (Clooney's character) still go ahead with it after talking with his son? His face told all - he KNEW it was his son, and not the Russians trying to trick him. As a parent, I know what my instinct would be.
Some of the other commentators mentioned how dated the subject matter was - I strongly disagree, especially given the "laundry list" of countries at the end *known* to have nuclear capability, and volatile enough to chuck it all.
As to the performances... I think Richard Dreyfuss was too snippy and not commanding enough as President (I haven't seen the original "Fail Safe" to compare his performance with Fonda's), but all the other actors did a fine job.
POSSIBLE SPOILER. The only question I have is: As the only person who could prevent the bomb from being dropped on Moscow, why did Col. Grady (Clooney's character) still go ahead with it after talking with his son? His face told all - he KNEW it was his son, and not the Russians trying to trick him. As a parent, I know what my instinct would be.
Daring Live TV Production is Very Good
mrb198014 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This live TV-movie is an update of the 1964 theatrical thriller. While not quite as good as the original, it was the first live TV drama in about 40 years. Several U.S. bombers miscommunicate due to Russian radio jamming, and mistakenly head straight for Moscow with their nuclear weapons. The rest of the film primarily takes place in Strategic Air Command headquarters and in a small room where the U.S. President and the Soviet Premier try desperately to avert a global nuclear war via telephone link.
Like the 1964 movie, it's a very tense, claustrophobic film which shows just how easily a global crisis could occur due to human failing. Richard Dreyfuss as the President, George Clooney as a bomber pilot, Sam Elliott as a visiting congressman who watches the drama unfold, Harvey Keitel as a general who is trying to understand the crisis, are all great. Walter Cronkite introduces the production, which is shot beautifully in black and white.
The movie has earned my respect for its daring live production, in an age in which everything is shot on videotape and all acting and directing mistakes can be easily corrected. If you're too young for truly live TV, please take time to watch this once.
Like the 1964 movie, it's a very tense, claustrophobic film which shows just how easily a global crisis could occur due to human failing. Richard Dreyfuss as the President, George Clooney as a bomber pilot, Sam Elliott as a visiting congressman who watches the drama unfold, Harvey Keitel as a general who is trying to understand the crisis, are all great. Walter Cronkite introduces the production, which is shot beautifully in black and white.
The movie has earned my respect for its daring live production, in an age in which everything is shot on videotape and all acting and directing mistakes can be easily corrected. If you're too young for truly live TV, please take time to watch this once.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
